Extending the Charm
By Tes Staylace
Copyright 1998
One admirer's
perspective on petticoats, crinolines, hoops and farthingales
Remember! We alternate between "Petticoat Pond" and "Tightlacing Topics" (my URL for corsetry is http://www.staylace.com
Feel free to write me at staylace@staylace.com! All e-mail will be answered.
Why are bulky skirts so
intriguing? Why do they continue to find a place in the female
wardrobe, despite their unwieldiness? What makes them so
attractive?
Well, one of the most obvious
answers is silhouette: A wide skirt exaggerates the female
figure, allowing for the illusion of a thinner waist, and a
curvaceous-ness that defines femininity of form.
Mystery is another aspect.
Whats under there? The skirt seduces us into a world in
which few men participate. Beneath the surface lies a myriad of
captivating items: petticoats, garters, suspenders, stockings,
panties, garterbelts, long girdles, long corsetsand the
fragrances bestowed upon her flowergarden by the lady herself.
How can one help but wonder
.and desire to see and explore?
But the mere width of the garments
seems to preclude our examining the contents further. So,
we are stymied as well as seduced, urged on as well as separated.
Perhaps this protection gives the lady the courage to further
inflame his passions, she secure in the knowledge that any
advances can be dealt with easily, and allowance for advance kept
in proportion to her interest in the gen-tleman. A garment
to control her libido, as well as that of the interloper.
But there is a dichotomy here: The
strength endowed on womanhood by such garments is countered by
the fact that they leave her "open-ended" and
access-ible. Accessible to the elements, such as wind and
unfortunate stumble; ac-cessible to unwarranted intrusion by
those with little regard for the social pro-priety assumed above.
This was particularly true during times in our history when it
was considered uncomely for a lady to cover her private areas,
further discussed below. At one time, hoop crinolines and
voluminous petticoats placed a ladys very well-being in
immediate danger should her clothing catch fire, or should her
hoop attach itself to a moving vehicle.
Recently, there existed a great
deal of controversy on Broadway, because, during intermissions,
the ladies rooms always had long lines, while men could zip
in and out with very little wait. Advocates argued that ladies
required stalls and men did not, so the ladies rooms should
accommodate more fixtures than the mens. The whole
situation almost turned ugly, as some impatient (and improper)
women charged into the gentlemens restrooms, waving off
sur-prised reaction as necessary to further their cause.
There is an historical reason for
this situation: During the earlier days of Broad-way (during the
Victorian and Edwardian eras), it was considered indelicate for
the distaff side to give the impression that she had to attend to
bodily functions. Add to that the incredible project involved in
undressing and redressing, along with the confining atmosphere of
a facility stall, and one can well understand why ladies stayed
in their seats during intermission. Therefore, little reason
existed to construct the ladies rooms with too many
fixturesthey wouldnt use them anyway. Most women
attended to their bodily functions BEFORE leaving for the
theater, and drank and ate little thereafter. An examination of
historical copies of Playbill type publications yields
some affirmation of this situation: Almost every article was
written to attract the female reader.
But wide skirts also helped
in the personal activities of women during the hooped crinoline
and farthingale eras: Anecdotal evidence suggests that there were
instances of women attending lawn parties, and standing off to
one side whilst urinating. No proper gentlemen would ever think a
lady would do such a thing, but who would know? It was a day when
women were proscribed from wearing any type of
"pant-ed" garment, including drawers ("only a
loose woman would wear pants!"). All it took was a little
practice, and the lady could avoid a trip to the outhouse, with
its attendant uncleanness. How happy the lady would be at the
prospect of escaping the necessity to access such a small space
in such a large skirt! Their "dirty" little secret!
So: Were the unwieldy (crinoline
hoops) and confining (corsets) fashions of years gone by the
result of male oppression? This seems to be a common bit of
propoganda in our "feminist" culture. Those of us who
appreciate these fine adornments nonwithstanding, it was males
who actually caricatured crinoline cages and tightlacing,
expressing disdain and belittling women for their fashionably
foolhardy adherence to "fads." It was men who pointed
out possible medical deleterious effects fo tightlacing and the
dangers of wearing cages, which could either catch fire, or
become caught in a passing vehicle or other moving object. These
observations became fertile ground for cartoonists
satirical lampooning of these fashions.
So it was women who begot
these innovations, and, unlike some men of another era, we are
forever grateful to them and their understanding of the effects
of feminine attire on men. Generally, with exception, modern
women do not have a clue regarding the seductiveness of
petticoats and the like. Rather, many feel that the fewer the
articles of clothing they wear, the more attractive they are to
men. One can only suppose they mistook the males admiration
of the naked female form to be a signal to disrobe, not realizing
that mystery is what beguiles the average man.
END OF PART I (Part II will
be here in April!)
|